'This Week' Transcript: Sens Kerry and Lugar

AMANPOUR: Hello again. It was a historic day yesterday, as the
Senate voted to repeal the ban on gay men and lesbian women serving
openly in the military. This has been a very active lame-duck Congress,
with major pieces of legislation on the table, and next up, an expected
vote on the arms control treaty with Russia, one of the president's top
foreign policy priorities.

The two senators responsible for getting the votes for that treaty
are with me this morning, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, and the ranking Republican,
Senator Richard Lugar.

Gentlemen, thank you very much, indeed.

LUGAR: Thank you.

KERRY: Glad to be here.

AMANPOUR: Before we get to the upcoming business of START, let's
talk about the repeal of "don't ask/don't tell." Historic. What does
this mean for the U.S. military and for the country?

KERRY: Well, for the country, it means that our citizens will no
longer have to lie and live a lie on a daily basis or be denied the
opportunity to serve their country. Gay people have served the United
States with distinction. They've won awards. They've given their lives
all through our history. We had a policy that asked them to lie about
it. They no longer have to do that.

I believe it fulfills an enormous promise of equality in our
country. It's an historic day.

AMANPOUR: Senator Lugar, you did not vote to repeal "don't ask/don't
tell," and yet the majority -- the vast majority, 77 percent of the
American people, say that it's time. Why did you not do that?

LUGAR: I was influenced by those who are in combat presently in
Afghanistan and the testimony of the Marine commandant that the
adjustment that would be required by this is one that really ought not
be take place, and -- and given the -- the -- the problems of combat and
-- and Afghanistan currently.

AMANPOUR: So do you think it's going to be implemented? I mean,
Secretary Gates, Chairman Mullen have said it will take some time to
implement, but they are sure, like many other militaries around the
world, that it will be implemented without too much of an issue, if at all.

LUGAR: Well, that was sort of the enabling clause of what we voted
on yesterday, that this is pushed back until somehow these adjustments
can be made.

AMANPOUR: Let's get...

KERRY: Can -- can I just say, quickly? I understand completely what
Dick Lugar and John McCain and others were expressed, which is a view
that some folks in the military still have. And I think that's why many
of us felt it was so important for the Congress to do it, because if the
courts did it, then there wouldn't be this capacity that Dick just
referred to that allows Secretary Gates and the military to decide how
they're going to implement it.

AMANPOUR: Well, another big struggle is the START treaty, the New
START treaty, nuclear treaty between the United States and Russia. And
I know you've been furiously lobbying to get this done. Do you believe
that there will be a vote, that it will pass?

KERRY: I believe it will pass, and I believe there will be a vote.

AMANPOUR: And you, Senator Lugar? Will your members, the
Republicans in the Senate, have enough numbers to pass this? Two-thirds
of the Senate has to vote on it.

LUGAR: Several Republicans will support it, and I join the chairman
in believing that there are the votes there. The problem is really
getting to that final vote.

AMANPOUR: But the chairman, Senator Kerry, says that it will happen
early this week.

LUGAR: Well, he would know as well as anyone. I think...

AMANPOUR: Do you doubt it?

LUGAR: I think we still have a good number of amendments to be
heard, and we will do our work shortly today, as a matter of fact, to
try to move things on.
AMANPOUR: And on the substance of the complaints by Senator McCain
and others that this treaty somehow impairs and impedes the United
States' ability for its missile defense shield, what are the facts that
you can tell them about that?
KERRY: The most significant fact of all is that the general in
charge of our Missile Defense Agency, who is responsible for this
program, says unequivocally, in testimony between the Armed Services
Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and publicly, there is no
restraint, zero, none, no restraint whatsoever on our missile defense
capacity. Secretary Gates says it. Secretary Clinton says it. The --
the intelligence community says it. All of our military leaders want
this treaty. So...

AMANPOUR: The words in the preamble, are they legally binding?
KERRY: No, there is no legal binding statement whatsoever. There is
a sort of statement that for political purposes was necessary to -- to
achieve what we achieved.
The important thing is, the Russians wanted to have a binding
statement precluding us from having missile defense. There is nothing
in there that restricts our missile defense system. The president made
that crystal clear in a letter he sent to the leadership. I read it on
the floor yesterday. And he has said he disagrees with whatever
statement the Russians have made publicly. We are proceeding forward on
the understanding within the treaty. Within the four corners of the
treaty, there is zero restriction on U.S. missile defense.
AMANPOUR: What happens if it is not ratified? What does this mean
for the security of the United States?
LUGAR: Well, it's a very bad picture. The importance of this is
that the Russians are important to us. We're hearing on the floor that
the Russians are one thing, but it's almost as if this is a generation
ago. Now it's North Korea or Iran.
We're saying, as a matter of fact, it's very important to have boots
on the ground in Russia inspecting what is occurring, verifying what is
occurring, as we have had, so we don't make vast mistakes in terms of
rebuilding all of our armed forces or taking other actions.
Furthermore, it's very important that we have negotiations with the
Russians, as we will proceed then, to take a look at the tactical
nuclear weapons, other ways the Russians can work with us against
nuclear in Iran or North Korea.

To throw away all of those opportunities simply because some feel the
Russians are no longer relevant or -- or we should just simply build
whatever we want to quite apart from the Russians seems to me is an
illogical stance, but we're hearing a lot of that.
AMANPOUR: Well, you have spoken about Russian cooperation on Iran,
North Korea, and all the other areas of -- of vital American national
security. Also in Afghanistan, it seems the Russians are now allowing
the U.S. to re-supply forces in Afghanistan.
The president unveiled the Afghan review, the war review this week,
and it seems saying that there's not fast enough progress, but decent
progress on the ground. But one of the key issues remains the
sanctuaries and the re-supply of Al Qaida and Taliban into Afghanistan
from Pakistan. What more can the United States do to get Pakistan to
close those borders?
LUGAR: I'm not certain there is much more we can do. Our diplomacy
has worked full time. So have our agreements with the Pakistanis, in
terms of their own security.
But at the same time, the Paks don't really have control over a lot
of the territory. People have been coming and going for -- for decades,
as a matter of fact. We -- we just have a problem there that -- quite
apart from the fact the Taliban are re-entering some of the northern
parts of the country, quite apart from the fact that even after we expel
Taliban from towns, there's not much governance in many cases, and
debates on billions of dollars of infrastructure we're trying to get
built in Afghanistan, sometimes without the cooperation of the central
government.
AMANPOUR: Related to this, we opened the papers this weekend to find
that the CIA station chief in Pakistan has been outed and has had to
leave, basically, in fear of his life. The ISI now saying, "We didn't
do it." They deny having made his name public. Do you believe
Pakistan's at fault there? And do you think that this is going to be a
major setback for U.S. policy right now there?
KERRY: No, I don't believe it will be a major setback, and I think
we need to stop having public debates about what Pakistan is at fault
for or not at fault for and what we're not at fault for or at fault
for. That does not help this process.
Pakistan, it's -- it's a very fragile democracy that has emerged out
of eight years, nine years or whatever, of the Musharraf dictatorship.
There are huge economic difficulties facing them, huge internal
difficulties facing them. They've made many decisions that, in fact,
put themselves at risk in many ways. The drones are very unpopular, all
through Pakistan. And yet they're allowing us...

AMANPOUR: And yet the backbone of U.S. success right now there.

KERRY: The backbone of our success. They have -- no one a year ago
would have thought the Pakistanis would have 147,000 troops in the
western part in the territories. Nobody would have thought they would
have gone into Swat and gone after the insurgents or South Waziristan.
Their soldiers have a two-year tour. Their army has been somewhat
stretched. And I've spent hours with their chief of command, General
Kiyani. I believe they know exactly what they want -- we want them to
do, what they have to do, and I believe at some point it's going to
happen.
AMANPOUR: Well, one of the key American diplomats who was loud and
clearly telling him America's strategic vision and what they had to do
was Richard Holbrooke, America's point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
His loss, his death this week, how is that going to affect this process?
KERRY: Well, it's -- Christiane, you knew him, we all knew him.
It's an enormous, enormous loss. I mean, Richard -- you know, some
people could always find him, you know, too strong in his point of view
or, you know, too focused on what he wanted to get done, but I'll tell
you something: He was a diplomat of extraordinary ability who knew how
to get things done, who had a vision.

He was moving things. The team he put together to work on this is
one of the most exceptional teams of people I've seen assembled in
Washington, D.C. They -- they really understood where they were trying
to go. And it's a loss, and it's going to be -- difficult shoes to
fill, no question.
AMANPOUR: Senator Lugar?

LUGAR: He was a dear friend. And -- and more importantly, he was
trying to get the money into Pakistan that John and I had fostered in a
so-called Kerry-Lugar bill.
Now, the Pakistanis liked the idea of a five-year program. They
liked the idea of money for schools and legal enforcement and the rest
of it. But getting it there, who -- who runs it? How can you monitor
it? This took all the diplomatic skills of Richard, and he still wasn't
quite there with it.

But in answer to the question about Pakistan, all we can do, we are
trying very hard diplomatically, a five-year program, because it is
critical. If the Al Qaida are over there and the Taliban go back and
forth, things are not going to continue to work well in parts of
Afghanistan without change.
AMANPOUR: Senators, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us on
these very important topics. And we'll be watching the debate in the
Senate this weekend.

AMANPOUR: And we're going to pick up the discussion of the
administration's review of the Afghanistan war on our roundtable and, as
they take their seats, listen to President Obama's words about the war
from three of his major speeches in the past two years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Many people in the United States and many in partner
countries that have sacrificed so much have a simple question: What is
our purpose in Afghanistan? We have a clear and focused goal: to
disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several
years it has moved backwards. Our forces lack the full support they
need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and
better secure the population.

This continues to be a very difficult endeavor, but I can report
that thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians on
the ground, we are on track to achieve our goals.

Thank you all for being here. Let's go, George, to you regarding
the Afghan review. Republicans still solidly on board. American
people, though, the majority say, no, we've got to get out. How long do
the Republicans stay with this war?

WILL: Well, let's step back a minute. When the president announced
simultaneously the surge in December 2009 and the beginning of
withdrawal in the summer of 2011, conservatives said he's a reluctant
warrior. Not true. He's waging this war with -- with real vigor at
this point.

However, in the 10th year of the longest war in the nation's
history, our military -- superb military, funded as well almost as the
rest of the world's militaries combined -- is facing an adversary with
no artillery, no armor, no fixed-wing aircraft, no helicopters, no
intelligence service. Wherever we meet them, we beat them. That's not
the point. The point is, are we achieving more than, as the review just
said, gains that are fragile and reversible?

AMANPOUR: Rajiv, you've been on the ground more than 12 times over
the last couple of years.

CHANDRASEKARAN: There are pockets of progress, but overall it's
still a very difficult, very grim picture. When you put more U.S. boots
on the ground, you do get short-term security improvements. That's what
we've seen around Kandahar. The review notes that.

But the bigger strategic questions, getting Afghan governance up and
running, getting them to deliver basic services, getting them to build
the necessary, most basic frameworks of a state so they can take
responsibility of a situation, that still seems a long way off. And --
and this strategy hasn't yet yielded those sorts of gains and benefits.

AMANPOUR: And on the ground, also, the issue of constant re-supply
of Taliban from Pakistan's side, but also there are internal divisions,
stresses within the administration also on -- on this war. And you've
been talking about it.

CHANDRASEKARAN: Indeed. I don't think the review that just came
out suggests by any stretch of the imagination that there's agreement
within the administration. They've kicked the can down the road until
the spring, early summer, when the president is going to have to decide
just how many troops to withdraw, and it's looking like there will be a
meaningful troop drawdown by next summer. The skeptics are not convinced.

AMANPOUR: Donna? Because actually the can has been kicked down to
the beginning of 2015.

BRAZILE: That's correct. Look, when the president went to Europe
to the NATO summit and agreed with the framework that we would stay
there until 2014 or longer, we now have a conditional sort of
transition, so to speak.

But I agree. Unless the governance, unless we can get President
Karzai to delegate more authority to the governance, to the local
governors, not pick all of the people, give the tribal leaders some say
into who will run things so that all of the money is not just trickling
down from the top, unless we get the people there in Afghanistan to buy
into what we're doing, our military have done a superb job, but there's
nothing that follows once the military clears the landscape.

FREELAND: You know, I think we're accustomed to separating the
discussions about foreign policy and domestic economy. But I think when
it comes to Afghanistan, really, a key issue is going to be both the
U.S. domestic economic debate and just how the economy is doing.

It's incredibly expensive, and unemployment is still really high.
As you see the economic debate focus on actually cutting government
spending, I think the national tolerance which we're already seeing is
quite low among Republicans, as well as Democrats, for paying for this
is going to diminish.

AMANPOUR: So let's -- let's jump to that. And the domestic,
economic debate which was shown, I think, quite glaringly, wasn't it, in
the -- in the Senate this week with the spending bill.

WILL: Absolutely. The -- Harry Reid decided to call the bluff of
the Republicans with this $1.1 trillion spending bill, full of earmarks,
many of them put there by Republicans. Indeed, the two senators from
Mississippi, both Republicans, were the two largest earmarkers.

He called the Republicans' bluff, and it turns out the Republicans
weren't bluffing. They swallowed their own earmarks, took them off the
table, defeated the bill, which included, by the way, a billion dollars
in enforcement mechanisms for the health care bill. So the war that was
going to consume the next year over spending and small skirmishes has
already begun.

AMANPOUR: Let me play this interesting exchange that our own
Jonathan Karl had with Senator Cornyn on this issue of earmarks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Going through this bill, there's earmark after earmark from
the both of you, I mean, millions of dollars in earmarks from the two of
you and from other senators. How do you have any credibility on this?
Why -- why do you have earmarks in here?

CORNYN: Because we're going to vote against the bill. This is the
wrong way to do business.

KARL: Senator, were you wrong when you put these earmarks in before?

CORNYN: Karl, this is not just about earmarks. Earmarks are a
symptom of wasteful Washington spending that the American people have
said they want reformed.

KARL: Is that an acknowledgement that it was wrong to put the
earmarks in, in the first place, I guess is my question? Was that -- I
mean, that's the old way of thinking. Was that a mistake?

CORNYN: You've asked the question about five times, and I've tried
to answer it to the best of my ability.

Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: What was it all about?

WILL: Well, exactly that. I mean, elections have consequences.
The Tea Party has been heard. The Republican Party, everyone in the
Republican Party feels they have a zero on -- on their back of their --
of their suit jacket. They're going to behave.

This was a momentous moment when you got the appropriators -- it's
often been said by John McCain that there are three parties in Congress,
Republicans, Democrats, and appropriators, who are aligned to themselves
(ph). They lost.

AMANPOUR: Was it momentous or did the Republicans have to back
down? Would they have wanted those earmarks to go through? In fact,
many Democrats want the earmarks. Senator Harry Reid says it's our right.

BRAZILE: Well, the truth is, is that under the Republican
leadership, back in the last eight years -- I got to start watching
Saturday night football -- but under the Republican leadership, we saw
the deficit grow.

And finally the Republicans are now having to read the script that
the Tea Party has written for them. The truth is, is that the
Republicans, as well as the Democrats, will have to get very tough on
spending. It's going to be very difficult, when three-fifths of the
budget is already appropriated: the military, 20 percent; Social
Security, 20 percent; 21 percent of the budget is for Medicare,
Medicaid, the children's health program; and then you have 14 percent
left for an array of programs.

The president will have to make tough choices, but the Republicans
finally will have to come to the table and do the right thing and try
and get spending under control, but it's just not a spending problem.
We also have a revenue problem.

AMANPOUR: So what happens with the notion of bipartisanship?
People can point to any number of this legislation that's gone on in
this lame duck. Some show bipartisanship; some don't. What does this
say going forward for the -- for the new Congress?

FREELAND: I think it's going to be more partisan and more inflamed
than ever before. I think that one of the analyses that we saw after
the tax deal was, "Oh, hurrah, this might be the beginning of a new era
of bipartisanship."

But the tax deal was easy. I think of it as the Santa Claus deal.
It's really easy to cut everybody's taxes and then have more money for
poor people. Everybody's happy.

The rubber hits the road in 2011, because that's going to be about
cutting things that people want, and that will be really difficult. And
as Donna says, like a serious -- seriously attacking the deficit is
going to mean looking forward to also increasing taxes. Someone's got
to pay the...

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: But we were not all happy with the tax cuts.

WILL: But there will be some bipartisanship in the sense that --
what do you have, 23 Democratic seats up in the Senate this time around?

BRAZILE: Yes, 22.

WILL: Some of them who came in six years before '12 in 2006, which
was an usually good year for Democrats, and they're in some marginal
seats. Therefore, you're going to see some of them crossing the aisle
to support the Republicans on spending cuts.

CHANDRASEKARAN: But it generally I think will play better for the
president as he stands up to these -- these efforts to -- to really, you
know, attack spending over the course of -- of the spring. You know, I
think -- I think when this comes down to a confrontation, he's in a much
better position.

AMANPOUR: Just want to put up this -- as we talk about this, this
cartoon from the Economist. Basically, a large elephant is seen choking
President Obama and the heading reads "Republicans will make
conciliatory gestures, you know, hand around the neck."

And I guess I put that up because so many people have said this was
a great victory for President Obama. Some even on the conservative
pundits have said that the Republicans got snookered by this -- by this
tax deal. But didn't really have much choice, did he?

WILL: No, he had no choice whatever. Here's what happened this
week. The president lost the spending bill he wanted that had the
health care funds for him. The president lost on his tax pledge, which
was to cause an increase in taxes on -- on more affluent Americans. And
in Virginia, a federal judge declared the centerpiece of his centerpiece
-- that is, the health care mandate -- unconstitutional. And a federal
judge in Florida signaled he might say the same thing.

AMANPOUR: Donna, what happens with that?

BRAZILE: Oh, first of all, the federal judge in Virginia -- I mean,
this -- this -- this ruling was so narrow. And he didn't use the
commerce clause, George. He used the necessary and proper clause, which
sounds redundant. So I don't think that will stand. I still believe
overall the health care bill will continue to move forward.

Now, look, the president is going to have to show some of the kind
of leadership he showed this week, I think, in getting "don't ask/don't
tell" passed, if he gets START passed this week. This will be a good
month for the president.

AMANPOUR: OK, let's put up some of the impassioned debate over
"don't ask/don't tell."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WYDEN: I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough
to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are.

MCCAIN: I hope that, when we pass this legislation, that we will
understand that we are doing great damage. Today's a very sad day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Rajiv, you heard what Senator McCain says, and he says he
bases it on the feelings of troops on the ground. You've been there.
What are they telling you?

CHANDRASEKARAN: There's none of that passion that you saw in the
Senate out there in the deserts of Afghanistan. For the rank-and-file
in the U.S. military, this isn't all that big of a deal. They don't see
a big problem with implementation, and the younger generation just
doesn't have the same politicized views as some of the senior commanders
and -- and some of the -- the opponents to this, as -- as we heard from
Senator McCain.

AMANPOUR: Perhaps that's true overall, but certainly many of the
Marines -- a majority of the Marines -- who are really at the tip of the
spear have got serious worries. What do you think this is going to look
like as it's rolled out? Implementation is going to take a while.

BRAZILE: I think it's going to be a non-event. I really do. I
think -- I think we've made so much noise about an issue that most
Americans believe that, why? Why? People are willing to die for their
country. They're willing to serve. We've lost so many good men and
women simply because they refuse to lie. So I think this is a great day
for the country. We join the civilized world.

WILL: The Marines are a small service in which every Marine is a
rifleman, and their specialty is small-unit combat, and unit cohesion
matters. With that said, the Marines have their orders from the
commander-in-chief. You tell a Marine to take the hill, the hill will
be taken, and therefore they're going to implement it.

AMANPOUR: And the hill has been taken all over the world, by more
than 30 countries, which have...

FREELAND: Yeah, that's -- I -- I was going to make exactly that
point, Christiane. And I think Donna is right. I think that the big
event has happened now. And in real life, we're going to see that this
just rolls out. We've seen that other countries have done this. And,
you know, I think actually it's going to be the bang and now will be
just the slow whimper.

AMANPOUR: All right. And our roundtable discussion continues in
the green room at abcnews.com/thisweek, where you can also find our fact
checks in conjunction with PolitiFact.

Up next, is American food aid policy actually harming the ability of
the world's poor children to develop properly?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Did you learn to read and write?

(UNKNOWN): No.

AMANPOUR: Why not?

(UNKNOWN): "I want to learn, but I can't."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The vital first 1,000 days of life when we come back.

AMANPOUR: Joining me now to talk more about U.S. food aid policy is
Rajiv Shah, the administrator for the U.S Agency for International
Development.

Mr. Shah, thank you for joining us. And I might say, before you got
this job, you were at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation...

SHAH: Yes.

AMANPOUR: ... so there's a connection here. And I want to ask you,
how can this be happening? How can this be happening? Just put the
milk powder back at the very, very minimum.

SHAH: Well, you know, the segment you just ran is an incredibly
important one, because it highlights the huge problem of child
malnutrition. And over the last decade, we've learned a lot about how
to address it.

And this administration, led by President Obama, but led also by
Secretary Clinton and myself, we've been very aggressive to change the
way food assistance takes place and to change the way development
happens so that we're focusing on the most effective interventions to
really help countries pull themselves out of poverty.

AMANPOUR: Right, that's the big thing that President Clinton was
saying there...

SHAH: Right.

AMANPOUR: ... that for many administrations, it's been a failure.
Based more on what benefits U.S. farmers than what's beneficial to the
people you're trying to help.

SHAH: That's right. And our new approach...

AMANPOUR: What are you doing now?

SHAH: Well, our new approach has been to continue to recognize that
we need to be the world's largest, fastest, most effective food aid
provider in emergencies, but this is not just about emergencies. This
is about helping the nearly billion people who go to bed every night hungry.

And so we've launched a major global initiative we call Feed the
Future, which is about helping countries do exactly what your segment
talks about, produce more local foods, produce higher quality foods,
improve the targeting of children under the age of two and pregnant
women, so that they get better micronutrients and they get proteins, and
by doing that, essentially creating the conditions that allow us to move
away from food aid and allow countries to take care of their own people
and their people's nutrition and welfare.

AMANPOUR: The GAO report last year found that the U.N. World Food
Programme did purchase food locally in Africa, spent 34 percent less on
similar aid provided to the same region by you, by USAID. And another
GAO study found that the delivery times for this kind of food, your
food, was over 100 days longer for your aid than for local food aid.
Plus, there was something like $140 million wasted in shipping. So this
is happening still now, as you say you're under review.

SHAH: Actually not. There are two facts that just came out. The
first is the United States and USAID is now the single largest provider
of resources for locally procured foods. We've gone from zero in our
spending in that area to $250 million so that we can buy foods locally,
buy the right foods, save money, and just as importantly, create the
incentives for small farmers, like Maria (ph), the one you highlighted
in the segment, to have the market incentives to improve their own
agricultural production and really build a vibrant agricultural economy
that helps move themselves out of poverty.

AMANPOUR: So what would you say to Maria (ph) or, indeed, her young
daughter, Liliana (ph), who you saw I spoke to there, who they believe
she didn't get the right food and she can't make it through school? And
as we said, studies actually show a link between developmental stunting
and physical stunting.

Is the U.S. farm bill going to change? I mean, what governs what
you send abroad, is that going to change? Will there be more nutrients
in it?

SHAH: Well, we absolutely are improving the nutrient quality of
food aid, but I want to highlight that this isn't just about food aid.
This is also about targeting kids under the age of two with clean water
and hygiene interventions, making sure we get micronutrient supplements,
like Vitamin A and zinc and iron, to pregnant women, and making sure
that comes together in a way that achieves real progress.

For one example, our program in Guatemala, which has adopted this
1,000-days approach to solving the problem, has seen a 28 percent
reduction in stunting amongst the treatment cohort of kids.

AMANPOUR: Since?

SHAH: In the past two years. And that is so important, because as
you know, in the western highlands of Guatemala, 73 percent of the
population is poor, it is entirely an agricultural-based economy, and 67
percent of the kids in that part of that country are stunted.

We think this is a solvable problem, and we're transforming the way
we do development to make sure we invest in the Marias (ph) of the world
who are the small women farmers who can actually be the solution.

AMANPOUR: And so as you take this lead in trying to make these
changes, does U.S. law need to change? Does what -- what is prescribed
under the farm bill and Title II need to change?

SHAH: Well, you know, we've changed a lot of regulations and how we
implement the law to make sure we do this. We're working in partnership
with private companies around the world and local companies in Senegal,
in Pakistan, in Kenya, and in Guatemala to make sure we're using locally
produced foods as much as possible. Your segment talked about
Plumpy'nut, which is a peanut-based product. We're also exploring the
use of chick peas in other parts of the world where that's the main
source of protein.

AMANPOUR: Given that Plumpy'nut exists right now, is that something
that the U.S. can -- can make part of its food aid?

SHAH: Absolutely. We're absolutely making a whole range of
products part of the food aid. You know, in fact, we were the first and
the most significant provider of food assistance during the flood --
immediate flood response in Pakistan.

The major product that we targeted to undernourished children in
that situation was a high-energy, high-calorie-value biscuit, because I
think we've all now recognized -- and USAID helps support the studies at
the Lancet and Tufts University that have demonstrated that we need to
move to higher quality, higher nutrition foods.

But I just want to come back to this other point, that part of the
solution here is reinvesting in agriculture. And that's why the Feed
the Future program that we've launched is really not just about how we
do food aid. It's about creating the conditions that allow countries to
take care of their populations from an agriculture and nutrition
perspective so food aid is not needed in the very long run.

And I really appreciate the segment where President Clinton was
talking about how we used to be the world leader in this: 30 percent
almost of all of our foreign assistance went to food and agriculture.
And during the '60s and '70s, we moved 300 million to 600 million people
out of poverty and extreme hunger.

We can do that again, and it can be cheap and efficient and a real
partnership with other countries around the world and those we hope to
serve.

AMANPOUR: And we'll be watching. Rajiv Shah, thank you very much,
indeed, for joining us.

SHAH: Great. Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And for more information on how you can help, go to
abcnews.com and saveone.net.